When I was a little kid, I was growing up on the tail end of the Renaissance Age of Animation. In the forefront of this was Disney, of course. I grew up on the stories of The Lion King, Mulan, and Beauty and the Beast. This was the age of phenomenally high-quality animated films that many of us fondly remember growing up with; stories that we will show our kids someday. But then, something happened. The quality of films dropped (Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Home on the Range…), and Disney lost some of its magic. Although it has regained some of its lost prestige by returning to its traditional style (Frozen and The Princess and the Frog), the quality of most modern Disney films just don’t match up to where they used to be. Maleficent is, I think, one branch of Disney’s attempts to reimagine its older works for the modern day and recapture some of its lost magic.

So does it succeed? Well, yes and no.

Maleficent is the story of Sleeping Beauty told from the villain’s perspective. Comparisons to Wicked are obvious and warranted. The difference is that now the story is told in live-action (with Angelina Jolie in the titular role) and with a slightly darker twist that portrays King Stefan (Princess Aurora’s father) in a villainous role. Maleficent herself is reimagined as a somewhat tragic character, who is outright stated to be “neither hero nor villain.”

This is all well and good. I have no problem with Disney reimagining their old fairy tales as live-action movies, but they need to fix some of the inherent problems in Maleficent. The main problem is the title character herself. While she is surely meant to be a much more ambiguous character than the obvious villain in the original fairy tale, her interpretation in this movie comes off more like the writers were not entirely sure what to do with her. Rather than being a morally grey character, she sometimes acts like a villain and sometimes like a hero, with her motivations for either being somewhat spotty. I was constantly confused why she was or was not doing things, and what kind of character she was supposed to be. Plus, they felt the need to give her the trite and obligatory Disney happy ending. The good thing is that Angelina Jolie is a much more competent actress than the writers are storytellers, and her solid performance keeps Maleficent from feeling boring.

For comparison's sake

Another problem is its slightly darker twist on the original film. It is just dark enough to appeal to Disney’s peripheral demographic of teenagers and adults without being dark enough to hold our attention. It occasionally takes a darker approach one might expect from more serious fantasy stories such as Tolkien’s works, but then it cheerfully switches back to the standard, worn Disney children’s fairy tales. Still, it’s just dark enough to be slightly creepy, and it could easily give more timid children nightmares. It feels like it’s trying to be both a kiddie fairytale and a darker fantasy story at once, but it doesn’t quite succeed at either.

The final critique I have (and take this how you will), is that I kind of like Maleficent as a villain. Maybe it’s because I’m a big fan of the Kingdom Hearts series of videogames where she is an important villain, but I always thought Maleficent was one of the only really cool bad guys Disney had; she was a sorceress, and she could turn into a dragon! Now, she’s just a pseudo-tragic character hung-up on a broken heart, and that just isn’t as interesting to me.

All that being said, this is still a Disney fairytale, with all the tropes that it implies. It looks gorgeous, and the acting is for the most part solid. If you have a younger sibling or a child, then by all means bring them to it; they will probably love it (although with a slight danger of nightmares). Alternatively, if you are a major fan of Disney fairytales, than you’ll still probably love it. But alas, I yearn for the days of the cool and evil villain I once knew and will return to Sleeping Beauty and Kingdom Hearts, where she will always be the villain she once was.

After all, not every character needs to have a happy ending.

Grade: B+ if you’re a Disney fanatic or a small child, otherwise B-/C+

Growing up watching Clint Eastwood movies, we have all imagined ourselves as a cowboy in the wild arid west, riding a horse and standing stiff for the gun duels. Robberies, outlaws and gunshots are pretty much what come to mind when you think of the 19th century west. But Seth Macfarlane wants to show you a different side of it. One where not only the bullets, but pretty much everything that moves and sometimes even the ones that don’t, are all out to kill you.A Million Ways to Die in the West is basically what it says it is! It’s a comical view at life in “Wild West” from the eyes of protagonist Albert Stark, played by Seth Macfarlane. The reason I chose to address Albert as the protagonist and not the “hero” is because he is the polar opposite of a gun-slinging, butt-kicking, always-angry type of hero we are used to seeing. Albert is a sheep farmer who believes that the only thing keeping him happy in the hellish land is his girlfriend Louise, played by Amanda Seyfried. But things change when she decides to end their relationship on account of him being a coward. Unable to cope with the break-up, Albert plans to leave town. This is when he meets Anna (Charlize Theron), the new girl in town. She finds Albert amusing and decides to help him get Louise back. One thing leads to another and Albert ends up falling in love with her, ignorant of the fact that she is the wife of fastest draw in the west, Clinch (Liam Neeson). As simple or archaic the story may sound, the crux of the movie lies in the humor, which is anything but mundane. As a writer of the movie, Seth packs a jungle of wisely crafted jokes and puns into the script. Believe me, 10 minutes is the maximum time you will get to recover and adjust your seats before another funny scene hits you. They are fresh; some expected, some unexpected and some that will make your stomach hurt. In short, if you paid a penny for every time that you laughed during the movie, it would surely be making millions. If you’re looking for a reason to watch this movie: it’s a heavy dose of laughter and yes, it shows a lot of ways in which west could kill you. The movie stands strong on what it promises to be, but falls short on a few smaller aspects. It is almost impossible to comprehend why there is such a huge cast of actors. Yet even if they do not end up portraying an Oscar-worthy character, they most certainly manage to keep you laughing. Seth Macfarlane takes on multiple hats as a director, writer and the lead actor. Albert Stark certainly is a character written for Seth and he plays it quite naturally. When it comes to direction, it’s hard to judge his work. There are events in the movie that may feel unnecessary, but they don’t tend to become boring or burdensome. The music, though infrequent, plays fairly well with the western theme of the movie.A Million Ways to Die in the West might not be Avant-garde, but it most certainly is a crowd-pleaser. It is not something that you take home and ponder over, but the kind of movie that entertains you and leaves you with a smile on your face. To add to the experience, the movie is loaded with cameos and references that you’ll want to keep an eye out for! Grade: A-

I picked this based entirely on Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo being in it. I realized I had made a good choice when the opening scene had Vampire Weekend’s “Cousins” playing and featured Zosia Mamet.

The film follows two siblings, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson), who want to meet their biological father. He isn’t in the picture because their mothers, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore), each gave birth with a sperm donation. Laser convinces Joni to call the sperm bank to set up a meeting, because she is 18 and allowed to request that information while he only 15. Their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), is a restaurateur “really pushing the alternative style.” After his mothers press him to explain his bizarre behavior recently, Laser admits to meeting Paul. Although obviously hurt that their children sought out Paul, they decide the whole family should meet him. As he gets more and more involved in their lives, the normal pattern of their family life gets shaken up.

The story was absolutely beautiful, which is probably why it was nominated for best original screenplay at the Oscars. I think it did a wonderful job balancing a story that was as much about growing up as it was about getting older. Joni is classically the “perfect child” on her way off to college in the fall. Although she is very uptight and straight laced like her mother, Nic, when she meets Paul—who is much more relaxed and less of a conformist—she starts to wonder if she’s missing out on experiences because of it and begins small acts of rebellion, like riding on Paul’s motorcycle. On the other hand, there’s Laser, who is very athletic but seems to be heading in a bad direction thanks to his friend, Clay. Paul points out his potentially destructive path, just like his mothers have, but he still doesn’t want to acknowledge it. While Laser was originally the one pushing to meet Paul, Joni ends up connecting with him much more.

Nic, a doctor, and Jules, currently a landscaper with a scattered job history, must also deal with themselves aging and changing. Nic is constantly stressed and a bit emotionally blocked recently, while Jules is a free spirit almost offended by Nic at this stage in their life. When they meet Paul, Jules connects with him because they are both free spirits. Nic, unsurprisingly, doesn’t care for him. Her biggest fear is that Joni will develop more of Jules’s traits and drift further away from her. Like all parents, seeing a child off to college is hard enough, but dealing with her becoming even further away terrifies Nic. It’s a really interesting take at the family relationships to see parents have to deal with their expectations of what their kids are going to become. It’s something that’s touched upon in many films, but here that idea is taken head on. While always loving them, there seems to be a particular sting whenever Paul talks about dropping out of school, fearing that it may convince Laser to follow in his path, or whenever Nic realizes that Joni is becoming her own person.

While I found the storyline touching and realistic, the superb acting helped the film immensely. Julianne Moore played her typical role (Don Jon & Crazy, Stupid, Love) as a free spirited, middle-aged woman and was exactly as good as you expect from her. She delivered a particularly moving monologue towards the end, but to avoid spoilers, I’ll just say you have to see it for yourself. Even better, perhaps, was Annette Bening, who earned an Oscar nomination for this role. She was incredibly believable as a tough parent with a demanding career. Her balance of heavy emotion with coldness was astounding. And while everyone was wonderful, lastly I want to mention how charming Mark Ruffalo is while still being able to handle the serious moments of the film well.

A lot of films trying to deal with so many different aspects of life can come off as too cliché or, even worse, appear to collapse under their own weight; thankfully, this is not one of those films. Director Lisa Cholodenko held the whole thing together and kept it away from both of the previously mentioned, disastrous ends that the film could’ve met. It was a fresh and different look at the family dynamic because most films would use a more traditional family or focus on only one aspect of their relationships. I think that being able to have an outsiders view and being somewhat detached from personal experience made it easier to take an objective look at what was being said about family. While I can’t relate to the circumstances of the film, I didn’t find it at all inaccessible or foreign. It was an ambitious idea for a film but sometimes, like Jules says about garden design, “more is more”.

Spanning the end of the 19th century through the first half of the 20th century, Teenage follows the invention of the teenager in Western culture. The film opens with an enigmatic introduction; I noticed the music, scored by Bradford Cox of Deerhunter and Atlas Sound, right away. You then are quickly transported into the soft and easy world of the movie: a mix of archival footage and soft voiceover make for a lyrical, hypnotic, and beautiful feel to the story of a demographic group that many consider to be the very opposite of soft and easy. The movie moves chronologically, acting as a historical profile through the lens of the teens in each generation, starting in the Industrial Revolution, a period when “teenage” literally did not exist. Little vignettes telling the stories of individual teens bring the viewer deeper into the feelings and situations of teens of each era, and each transition is punctuated with a quote that adds just enough cathartic impact, really incorporating resonance into the spectrum of emotion from the ride of the previous story events, including the flapper scene of the 1920s to WWII. Basically, the movie is like one of those educational films you watch in school, profiling a subject in a straightforward manner, but not bad or particularly dry; rather, it is soft, romantic, and pristinely interesting. It's not what I expected at all. It simply and unpretentiously shows what it means to be a teen in each of the presented eras, from the out-of-work young adults of the Great Depression, to the Hitler youth of the '40s who weren’t allowed to dress in the fashions or listen to the music of the American swing fad. It ruminates in the rosy nostalgia of the birth of teen angst and titillates the beginning of our current reality, suspending us in the sweet innocence of youthful rebellion. I'll leave you with a line from the movie: "Once you glimpse the world of tomorrow, you can never go back." Grade: A

The X-Men franchise has sadly lain a bit fallow in recent years. After the original in 2000 (which essentially resurrected superhero films from the dead), and its fantastic sequel X2 in 2003, the series disappointed fans and critics with the underwhelming conclusion to the trilogy The Last Stand in 2006 and that one from 2009 I’d rather not talk about. It regained some steam with First Class and The Wolverine, but neither of those films felt like they lived up to the quality of the earlier installments.Well, our wait is over. With epic action, a massive cast, an engaging plot, and the return of Bryan Singer, X-Men: Days of Future Past is the X-Men film that we have been waiting a decade for, and our patience has paid off.

In the future, mutants are on the brink of extinction. They, along with any human collaborators or even humans who might have mutant children, are mercilessly hunted down and destroyed by robotic monstrosities called Sentinels. These Sentinels are so powerful that even the full might of the X-Men can’t stop them: the only way they survive is by using Kitty Pryde’s (Ellen Page) powers to warn their earlier selves that they will shortly be slaughtered. Recognizing that they are on the losing side of the war, the X-Men (ie, the ones from the original trilogy) concoct a plan to send Wolverine back in time to 1973 to end the threat of the Sentinels before they can be built. But can Wolverine unite the younger X-Men (from First Class), or will his actions create a future that’s even worse?

Does that sound confusing? Well, once you get into the flow of the film it is extremely easy to follow. Although this film is a follow-up to all of the earlier X-Men films, it is first and foremost a sequel to First Class; the first 15 or-so minutes takes place in the future, and almost the entirety of the rest in 1973. The initial future section is heavy on exposition, but the movie does not fall into the trap of trying to explain every detail. Time-traveling is a plot device and nothing more; you either accept it and go along with the film, or you don’t. Similarly, while this film does explain several of the errors made in past films, it also ignores other errors entirely. Because that is not what’s important.

What’s important is that this is one of the best superhero movies of recent years. The action sequences are wonderful, and if anything are more epic than in any past film in the franchise. The plot is a return to the darker style seen in the earlier films: it shows a significant amount of graphic violence, and is not at all afraid to kill off characters (one of my few complaints about First Class is that it was a bit lighter and softer than I would have liked). And speaking of characters, there are tons of them, from veterans like Ian McKellan and Halle Berry as Magneto and Storm respectively, to their younger counterparts from First Class like Nicholas Hoult as Beast, to brand new additions like Evan Peters as Quicksilver and Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask. However, the four characters that get the most screen-time are Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (obviously), James McAvoy as young Xavier, Michael Fassbender as young Magneto, and (surprisingly) Jennifer Lawrence as young Mystique. In fact, one of my only criticisms of the films is that there are almost too many characters, with many of them feeling underutilized in the film. However, all of them get at least one kick-ass moment. And the main four are all well-fleshed out and engaging - another welcome return to the older movies.

This movie, with its epic action and compelling characters, is perfectly accessible to anyone who’s never seen an X-Men film before. However, if you’re like me and have seen all the others, you will get so much more out of this film. It is positively loaded with references, shout-outs and subtle jokes to every other film in the franchise. These provide not only valuable detail to tie-in the other films, but some fantastic comic relief as well. If you haven’t seen First Class, then please watch this short scene from it; believe me, the joke about it is absolutely hysterical. It succeeds at the difficult task of rewarding its dedicated fans without alienating any new fans.

All in all, this movie can be seen as a triumphant return to all of the things about the first two movies that made them great. For that, I thank Bryan Singer, who helmed the first two films but was unable to do so for the others. But now he’s back, and the sheer quality of everything in this film shows once and for all who needs to direct this series.

I guess I was quietly hoping that this would be the single greatest superhero film ever, but it is not. There are a few flaws, such as the underutilized characters, a few details that contradict the earlier films, and not as much social commentary as there could be, and surely people who are pickier than I will criticize it for that. However, while not perfection, X-Men: Days of Future Past is really, really damn good. It is as least as good as X-Men and X2, and possibly even better. It has everything that makes the X-Men series great, and at the end of the day, that’s all I can ask for as a fan. I hoped for awesomeness, and awesomeness is what I got.

Oh, and one more thing: there’s a little scene after the credits that you should probably stick around for.

I am the first to admit that I enjoy works of fiction that are a bit darker and more serious than the average filmgoer. I’ll take Battlestar Galactica or Neon Genesis Evangelion over a sitcom or romantic comedy any day; however, even I will admit that angst can be overdone or poorly executed. I use the term “wangst” (a combination of whining and angst) to describe this, but there’s also another phrase to characterize works so dark that the audience actually stops caring about it: “darkness-induced audience apathy.” Basically, even though “true” art is usually angsty, it needs to be conveyed well to keep audiences from getting annoyed or bored. Works in recent years have been struggling with this as the pressure to make everything more edgy and violent continues. Fortunately, a few works manage to avert this; among them is James Gray’s The Immigrant.

The Immigrant tell the story of Polish woman, Ewa (played by French actress Marion Cotillard), who arrives at Ellis Island with her sister, Magda (Angela Sarafyan). Unfortunately, Magda is quarantined because of illness, and Ewa is rejected by the immigration authorities because of questionable conduct on the voyage to New York. Just when all seems lost and she is about to be deported, Ewa is found by a man named Bruno (Joaquin Phoenix) who offers to help her. However, this help has a cost, and soon Ewa is sucked into a life of prostitution in 1920s New York. Things get even more complicated when she meets Bruno’s estranged cousin Emil (Jeremy Renner), and they start to fall in love.

Let me preface this by saying that my earlier criticisms of pointless darkness in fiction does not mean The Immigrant is light or happy. It is a realistic period-piece that does not disguise the difficulty and hardship of the life of a poor immigrant. Rather, I like this film exactly because it is not pointlessly or overwhelmingly dark. Ewa goes through many trials and hardships, but all of them are meaningful and relevant. Nothing feels like it was tacked-on just to make the film bleaker. And as such, even though it can be bleak at times, this film never loses itself in the darkness; it maintains a sense of hope even in its darkest moments.Add to the balance of darkness that the low-budget film surprisingly features some impressive acting chops. Marion Cotillard continues to appear seemingly anywhere she wants after the success of her first big American picture, Inception. Joaquin Phoenix continues the restoration of his acting career started with Her after some… interesting years (see I’m Still Here). And this (along with American Hustle) will hopefully prevent Jeremy Renner from being type casted as Hawkeye. In contrast to the big-name actors on display, the rest of the film is quite understated, with a focus on dialogue and the everyday and ordinary struggles of an immigrant. It is colored in a typical (but still good-looking) sepia tone to give this wonderful period piece a dated feel.I admire this movie for being able to straddle the fine line between angst and hope in its story. It is something that many stories seem to have trouble with; they feel either inconsequential and meant to provide fluff entertainment or unceasingly dark and gritty in an ill-advised attempt to be relevant and edgy. They say that even in the darkest night there is always a light at the end of the tunnel; hopefully this film is that light for the modern movie industry.Grade: B+

Oh Adam Sandler, what has become of you as of late? Your last 5 films – Grown Ups, Just Go With It, Jack and Jill, That’s My Boy and Grown Ups 2 – have a combined rotten tomatoes score of 59%, an average of 11.8%. Ouch. But hey, most of those made money, so why fix what isn’t broken, right? Perhaps in an effort to recapture some of his former comedic freshness and energy, Sandler has reteamed with two colleagues from one of his best films, The Wedding Singer: Director Frank Coraci and costar Drew Barrymore (whom he also paired with in the rather successful 50 First Dates). Though Blended is a better film than what he’s put out recently (I assume; I couldn’t make myself sit through any of the five films I mentioned above), it is far from Sandler’s best.

I had the same expression as that little girl as I exited the theater.

Blended follows Sandler as family man Jim, a widowed father of three girls who works at Dick’s Sporting Goods. Barrymore plays Lauren, a divorced mother of two boys who organizes rich people’s closets for a living. After an ill-fated and decidedly unsuccessful date, both characters separately receive vouchers for the same fully-funded safari trip in South Africa. Upon arriving and discovering The-Date-They-Want-to-Forget is standing before them, they decide to pretend to be one big, blended family so that they can all keep using the reservations under their benefactors name. “Hilarity” ensues.

Let’s start off with what works in this film. The family dynamics and the conveyance of life lessons are successful and engaging, if not especially authentic or original. Every member of the blended family has a personality and a story, and they each demonstrate a moment of development and growth. This is a welcome element when one considers that such character development could easily have been cast aside in favor of another dozen flat and childish jokes. It helps make the film feel more well-rounded. I was also mostly pleased with the budding romance between Sandler and Barrymore. These actors have known one another for many years, and their real-life friendship works in their favor as their characters start to open up to one another. In the film, it is each star’s interactions with the other’s children that really brings them together, helping them to better understand one another. I know it’s a bit of a hokey approach, but in a mostly lackluster film, the construction of these relationships is one of the stronger points.

What doesn’t work so well is the comedy. ‘Meh’ to the MAX. It is incredibly generic, inorganic and forced. Yes, there are moments where I genuinely laughed out loud, but I spent most of the film cringing at the awkward and predictable gags. The humor is very much in line with Adam Sandler’s reputation; if you’ve seen his films before, then you know what to expect. Now, familiarity is not necessarily a bad thing, I just wish it was more familiar with his earlier work than his recent efforts. Blended feels like a step back, rather than a step forward. It lacks creativity, and the film is littered with completely unnecessary Happy Madison cameos.In the end, my experience was mixed. I liked a good portion of the family dynamics and the developing romance between the two stars, but the comedy was certainly hit and miss. Actually, it was mostly miss. I haven’t even touched on the portrayal of the African continent in this film; I understand that it’s a comedy and that it wants to focus on the light-hearted and cheery parts of life, but the environments in which the characters find themselves and the people with whom they interact are very stereotypical. Not that I expected much more from an Adam Sandler movie.

If you’re a fan of Sandler’s recent efforts, then you’ll love this film. If you’re looking for the more creative and charismatic Adam Sandler of The Wedding Singer, Happy Gilmore and 50 First Dates, you’ll likely be disappointed. Let’s hope that his next effort is a return to form. Grade: C-

I return once more to a film by two of my favorite filmmakers: the Duplass brothers. And yet again, they deliver a funny, touching film that focuses on two estranged brothers. Jeremy (Mark Kelley) and Mark (Steve Zissis) haven’t talked much in 20 years since their homemade Olympics, a 25-event competition called the Do-Deca-Pentathalon, ended in controversy. With Mark’s birthday and a celebration scheduled at their mother’s house coming up, both Mark and Jeremy question how to handle the situation. Mark and his family—wife Stephanie (Jennifer Lafleur) and son Hunter (Reid Williams)—are fearful that Jeremy will arrive and bring out their old tension, so they don’t want to go. Jeremy, a single poker player, sits in a strip club wondering if he should feel bad about not being invited. Both men decide to show up. Mark, Stephanie and Hunter hope for a fun family weekend and go to run the annual 5Kroad race. Right after the race begins, Jeremy speeds up in his car, jumps out, and runs to catch up to his brother, who he then antagonizes to race him. Thus the competition begins anew. First and foremost, watching a sibling rivalry escalate to this level of competition is hilarious. Even during the first of 25 events, the two brothers shove each other and dive across the finish line. The tension then heightens when Stephanie wants to end the event because of Mark’s health problems. Throughout the competition, the two men have to lie to their family and others to keep the competition going. When they arrive at their second event—laser tag—before it opens, they try to get in by telling the kid working there that Hunter, Mark’s son, has cancer. Watching two out of shape, middle-aged men struggle through the events is good for several laughs. The way the Duplass brothers are able to capture the tension of brotherhood is both heart warming and touching. It beautifully balances the hate and love so essential to that relationship.

This film, similar to Jeff, Who Lives at Home, is shot beautifully. Its simplicity really shines. The locations boil down to just their mother’s house, a YMCA, and a school, and there’s really only five characters in the entire film. With minimal characters and setting, the film is able to focus on the core relationships. The script is sometimes painfully real, too. There are moments when the one character is able to strikingly convey some flaw in another character, and it’s great to see how the events unfold between the two brothers. During one particularly beautiful moment, Jeremy talks to his mom about the competition and acknowledges that he and Mark don’t talk, they just “beat the shit out of each other.” They are able to use fighting and competition as a way to convey that they still care about one another.

At one point in the film, the whole family goes to play laser tag at 9 am. When Mark and Jeremy find out the place doesn’t open until 11, they try telling the kid inside that Hunter has cancer so that they can get in to play. It’s times like these that, while hilarious, the film can seem to get a little too ridiculous. Despite that, I think it was still able to remain focused on the brotherly relationship and present it in a realistic way. It’s interesting the way brothers are able to not just fluctuate between love and hate, but to actually do both at the same time. As brothers themselves, I think Mark and Jay Duplass are able to deconstruct the relationship in an interesting way. Grade: B+ Runtime: 76 minutes

Stephen King is the Master of Horror. He’s written more novels than most people read in their entire lives and the majority of them can scare the pants off any savvy reader. And from Carrie to The Shining, his novels have been adapted into some of the most notoriously horrifying films ever made. Not all scares are equal, however. While The Shining uses a menacing atmosphere and gorgeous framing to terrify the viewer, 1992’s Sleepwalkers marks a shocking, horrifying low-point for the Master of Horror. It’s not a mediocre adaptation of his work, but an original screenplay by King himself. It’s a shame to see something so poorly paced and horribly written with King’s name on it; on the other hand, we can spin this as a rare gift of unintentional comedy and maintain our love for the man. Let’s start from the beginning. We’re introduced to Mary and Charles, a mother and son in one of King’s idyllic 50s towns, but there’s something not quite right about them. They’re strange shape-shifting cat people called sleepwalkers that can turn invisible, change the color of cars, and steal souls Dementor-style. Why? Nobody knows. There’s no explanation for their existence, why they need to shift between cat and human forms, or why their powers have evolved to the point of quick magical car tune-ups. All we get in the way of exposition is a montage of cats throughout history during the opening credits of the film. From the ancient Egyptians to blurry 19th century archival photos, we are reminded that cats do indeed exist and, by extension, have evolved into bizarre vampire creatures? No explanation whatsoever.

This makes the rest of the movie all the more difficult to swallow. Mary and Charles are initially spun as the protagonists of the film; it’s established very early on that they need teenage girls’ souls to survive for some reason. They could have done an interesting anti-hero take on their struggle and made you feel sympathy for horrible people a la A Clockwork Orange. However, there’s a point halfway through the movie where all of that changes and the movie is completely derailed. More on that later. But for those of you playing at home, let’s all pull out our Shitty Character Checklists! No explanation for their existence or motivation? Check! Impossible to sympathize with? Check! Trite dialogue that adds nothing but length to the film? Check! Incest? Check! That’s right. The movie starts off with subtle hints that the mother and son get it on, but then there’s a long scene where they dance and make out. Okay, we get it. We’re uncomfortable. Feel free to move on from this scene anytime you’d like, Sleepwalkers. Nope. It doesn’t. It goes even further. Trust me, you haven’t wanted a sex scene to end this much since The Room. Everything adds up to protagonists/antagonists that aren’t sympathetic or very scary, but they’re the main focus of the movie nonetheless so we’ve gotta roll with it.I’m halfway through this review but only about 20 minutes into the film. It’s that bad. Good thing there’s not much else to talk about plot-wise so I can spend more time on the hilarity that ensues. Another quick random fact about sleepwalkers: cats are their mortal enemies. Again, no reason, but cats hiss at Charles and Mary whenever they’re near, even in their human forms. They have bear traps lining their yard just for the cats that amass around their little suburban cottage. Turns out that cats cause them to burn and melt like water to The Wicked Witch of the West. So when Charles is in the middle of stealing a cute girl’s soul, who should come to the rescue by a policeman’s cat deputy. Yes, you read that right. The movie’s most charismatic and interesting character is an actual cat that Officer Andy Simpson carries around with him while he does cop things like drive and… What else do cops do in small midwestern towns? More questions that Sleepwalkers leaves unanswered. Clovis the Cat, on the other hand, has better things to do than play with the Officer’s squeaky toys. He’s got to kick some sleepwalker ass. In one of the most clumsily shot monster-attack scenes in horror film history, Charles the tries to eat his classmate’s soul, but just in the nick of time, the cop drives by and Clovis leaps onto Charlie with a RA-ROWL!!, bringing him to his knees and nearly killing him. At this point, the movie becomes a revenge pic starring Charlie’s mother as she tries to kill everyone involved with her son’s mutilation. The rest of the movie features more cheesy dialogue, incompetent cops, and a mob of over one hundred cats rushing in to save the day. A guy gets stabbed to death with an ear of corn. It’s hilarious. I usually don’t pull any punches when it comes to spoilers, but this is one I highly recommend you check out yourself just to see the ridiculous lengths this film goes to. To summarize: incestuous cat-people eat souls and stalk high school girls while actual cats try to stop them for no clear reason. Is this really what we expect from the man who brought us the tragic story of the telepathic prom queen? Could the author who so beautifully told the story of a man trying to cope with prison life really stoop this low? In order to keep my respect for Stephen King at a normal level, I like to imagine that some producer came in and made him cut out all of the parts that, you know, make sense in order to focus on the things that really matter: cat uprisings and corn murders.

Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) is driving back one evening from his job as a construction manager. He has made a decision, before the film started, that will affect where he’s going. And we watch as over the course of those 90 minutes, which unfold nearly in real time, Locke’s life begins to unravel and he is faced with deep questions about himself and the impact of past actions. And that’s it. Tom Hardy. In a car. Talking to people on the phone. And the fact that Locke is so tense, so compelling to watch, and remains so interesting for an hour and a half speaks volumes to the direction, cinematography, script, and--of course--Hardy’s performance.Locke plays out more like a play than a traditional plot-driven movie. I could easily see it making the jump to the stage with minimal revisions. (I’m being intentionally obtuse about any plot details because what minimal plot there is should be experienced with as little prior knowledge as possible.) The way the film was made even resembles a stage production: Hardy filmed his part over the course of six days, actually running through the entire film multiple times each day while the other actors, who were all in a hotel room, called him in the car. When each run through was done, they would reset, reposition the cameras, and go again. The continuous shooting schedule comes across in the final product; I really felt like I was watching these events unfold as they happened. Simply put, Tom Hardy has never been better. His fantastic, understated performance as Ivan Locke is the centerpiece of the film. To say that Hardy is this movie would not be in the slightest bit inaccurate: Locke is the only character we ever see on camera for the duration of the movie, so in the hands of a less than capable actor the entire film would have crumbled. In Hardy’s hands, however, Locke becomes a character study as much as it is taut thriller. The Welshman who always finds a solution, no matter the problem, is calm under pressure and rational by nature, yet cracks begin to show in the veneer by the time the film concludes. Hardy never overacts, never exaggerates Locke’s reactions to the crazy things that begin to unfold. Locke remains a believable and relatable protagonist that stays grounded in what he wants and needs to accomplish. It’s an amazing, nuanced performance, and is one of the best he’s ever given. If the film weren’t so small and hadn’t been released in the spring, I’d easily consider Hardy an early candidate for Best Actor. The cinematography is simple but beautifully executed. Head-on shots of Hardy are most commonly used, with reflections of passing headlights and streetlamps shooting by on the windshield. As the film progresses, however, these highway scenery shots are used to a slightly disorienting effect. A side shot of Hardy, for example, might have laid on top of it a head-on shot of passing cars, rather than a side shot. A head-on shot might have headlights whizzing by in a direction that makes no sense. This very subtle dissonance begins to remove a sense of place from the film; Locke keeps driving, and time keeps passing, but the endless highways blur together. Does he know where he’s going anymore? Does he care? Like the best single-location movies (12 Angry Men, Tape) Locke takes as simple a premise as you can take--a man driving in his car--and makes a film that’s far more interesting than it has any right to be. The morality play of Ivan Locke is compelling, understated, and mesmerizing. Grade: B+